Madan Mohan Punchhi, J. - (1.) An eviction-petition was moved by the petitioner through S. Joginder Singh her General Attorney praying for resumption of possession of a premises situated on the Mall, Amritsar, presently in the occupation of the tenant. The Rent Controller, Amritsar, granted the application but on appeal, the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, reversed the decision. The landlady is now in revision before this Court.
(2.) Bereft of all details, the landlady seeks eviction, primarily on one ground which she has taken in the petition for eviction in the following terms : "That at present the applicant and her family consisting of herself, her husband and six grown up children are living and residing in Africa and they are shortly living that country for India for permanent settlement at Amritsar due to unstable and uncertain political situation in that country. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult for her family to live any more in Africa. Moreover, the applicant and her husband, who is now a retired Bank employee, desire to educate their children at Amritsar So. the applicant needs the premises in question for their personal use and occupation. The applicant has no other house within the urban area of Amritsar nor has she ever vacated a house in the said urban area of Amritsar " The tenant refuted this ground in the following terms : "The allegation that applicant and family are shortly leaving for India due to unstable condition in Africa is devoid of truth Firstly it is not admitted that the applicant is a resident of Uganda. Secondly, the persons who are affected by Uganda's riots are permanently settled either at England or Canada etc. and the applicant and her family has also permanently settled abroad Moreover, the applicant has made so many rooms on the upper portion of the disputed kothi and they are sufficient for her residence even if it is proved that the applicant Is coming to India."
(3.) Supportive evidence was given on behalf of the landlady by the testimony of Joginder Singe (A.W. 4) besides other evidence of A.W. 1, A W. 2 and A.W. 3 in order to prove that conditions in Kenya, where the petitioner was stated to be residing were not conducive for the Indians to stay there any longer. The Rent Controller disposed of this contentions issue in favour of the landlady holding as under:- "Keeping in view the sufficient status of the applicant, the number of her children the political situation having arisen. In the country of Kenya, where the applicant is residing presently, I am of the opinion that the applicant has bona fide intention to settle down at Amritsar and she requires the demised house for her personal use and occupation, as alleged by her and there is no other option but to order the respondent to vacate the premises in question within the stipulated period. Hence, the issue is decided accordingly in favour of the applicant and against the respondent." On appeal, the Appellate Authority rejected the contention of the landlady holding that her bona fide requirement was not proved and drew adverse inference against her regarding her failure to produce the notice said to have been served upon her husband by the Government of Kenya to leave that country and her passport. On oral evidence as well, an adverse inference was drawn that neither site nor any immediate member of her family had appeared in the witness box to support and prove the element of need which is a prerequisite for passing an order of eviction.;